President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.

Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.

Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.

He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged  without the knowledge or approval of Congress.

Is there not ONE (not even Bachman?) willing to stand up and call for at the least, hearings, if not impeachment?

Have they ALL been cowed and neutered by the fear they will be demonized by the Leftist, Lame-Stream Media and be charged with being "Anti-Military" (as has been wrong-headely, IMHO, suggested here by some Freepers) if they should criticize the Fascist Dear Leader for hin UNCONSTITUIONAL, unilateral, actions?

Have the Demo-Rats suffered the least for having taken this Hate-America/Military, "Surrender and Defeat" attitude since Nam?

Of course with its inability to ever frame a debate in such a manner which would reflect favorably on itself--thus proving their ineptness going back for 40 years and willingness to simply roll over, time and again on every major issue--the Pubes are doing what they do best: simply hiding under their desks, fearful to open their mouths.

What a bunch of spineless, wusses.

They disgust me...all of them!

10
posted on 03/21/2011 3:35:08 AM PDT
by Conservative Vermont Vet
((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))

Why would anyone expect BO/BS to follow the Constitution when he is illegally occupying the Oval Office because he doesn’t fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

I can’t recall a single US President/ or Congressman for that matter-since I was discharged that didn’t consider the UN indispensable—if not believing we were subject to its goals and decisions. some have pretended they could lead the UN to act on our behalf—But all of them have said we can’t kick them out —nor withdraw.The Muslim from ? is just more manifest in his subservience to foreign leadership.

American diplomats and American politicians are going on British television and stating, repeatedly and vociferously, that America is NOT effecting a war of aggression against Gaddaffi - in fact, they’re even saying that Gaddaffi himself isn’t a target. Why do you think that is?

The War Powers Act doesn’t just talk about declared states of war. It also discusses “specific statutory authorization” which means a scenario other than a declared state of war... for example, situations described persuant to the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act (1976). “Peace keeping missions”. Multi-lateral action. Treaties which America has signed with regard to protecting an ally. And so on.

Congress and the Constitution have to allow for the possibility that a situation might arise in the future where POTUS and the Joint Chiefs agree some form of military assistance or action is necessary but it falls short of declaring war, BUT the action has to be both immediate and decisive.

These days, one guy with something in a rucksack can lay waste to a city block, and a country’s economy can be decimated by someone tapping away on a keyboard. You can’t expect Congress to spend a couple of days making an informed debate if things are that fluid. It’s not like Korea and Viet Nam where there was ample time to get Congress on side and the incumbent POTUS couldn’t be bothered to go through the proper channels.

The retrospective Congress approval is catered for in your legal process precisely because Congress knows it can’t always react in time.

Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.

He’s got two unhappy choices: take an executive decision to save the ally and let the diplomats sort out the diplomatic fallout later... or don’t.

Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you don’t agree with what he’s done or how he’s gone about it, but one thing’s for certain: he’s not the first POTUS to do it and he won’t be the last POTUS to do it.

There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.

“Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a friendly nation.”

I’m at a total loss on the logic of this statement. How about Israel taking care of their own business? What would happen if the dirty bomb exploded as the attack occurred? What if innocent women and children were killed or injured?

No, No, No! ONLY immediate action that perils the United States directly are to be acted upon under these directives...NOT THE UN!

More importantly, where the hell, is Congress? Oh, yes, I forgot off on VACATION. What a bunch of incompetent, stumbling, bumbling fools!

The whole bunch needs to be thrown out,and replaced with new members, who understand what the Constitution means. Then term limits on Congress needs to be imposed. Until this happens nothing will get done, and we will continue to be a Country in decline.

IF I were a conspiracy follower, the whole Libya fiasco could be interpreted to be a cause that could forward the “One World Government” agenda of Soros/Obama/Progressives. (I’ll be convinced that’s true when the “rebels” in Libya push for Union Representation)

The basis for Gulf War 1 was to eject Saddam from Kuwait, and the basis for Gulf War 2 was the War On Terror. In both cases we *were* at war with the Iraqi regime.

The diplomats, politicians and even the army are very keen on emphasising that we are NOT at war with the regime in the case of Libya. This is more or less “true”. But it is not the “actualité”.

(Politicians and diplomats are completely familiar with the concept of “being economical with the actualité”. Google Alan Clark for a fantastic example of it.)

The actualité is, this whole Libya thing has been dressed up as a humanitarian intervention requiring swift and decisive international action. Precisely so that it *doesn’t* fit the exact same circumstances of a “war”.

Remember how the term “unlawful combatants” was coined simply to escape the “prisoner of war” jargon under which the Geneva Convention applied? Same thing.

Those were entirely valid questions. But politicians also consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing at home”. Diplomats consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing with our allies”.

Armchair commentators and small-town hick politicians can get away with making blanket assumptions, passing the buck, or playing barrack-room-lawyer to avoid having to make a hard choice. But then, they’re not going to be held to account for the consequences.

Say the terrorists were travelling through Germany and were mere hours away from launching the attack; at the very least the Germans and the Israelis would have to be notified of the threat. In reality, the Israelis are unlikely to be in a position to respond.

Realistically, the German government would have great difficulty authorizing the use of deadly force at short notice, against foreign nationals carrying a dirty bomb through a crowded German town. So would Washington.

If POTUS can’t do anything at all until he’s had all of Congress navel-gaze over all the options on the table and Germany took the same by-the-book approach then the net consequence would be the use of a WMD against one of America’s allies, with both Germany and America forced to sit on their hands.

IIRC there was a specific bit of legislation in the 1970s, regarding arms imports and mentioning the Middle East, which pretty much set the legal precedent up for the action Obama has just taken.

So I expect the top brass know that they're taking out the SAM sites and control rooms primarily to disrupt the ability of Gaddaffi to coordinate strikes against his own people, and once done it'll be up to the Libyans themselves to decide what to do with their dictator. One of the US brass on the BBC this morning, said they were actively avoiding tracking Gaddaffi's movements because they don't want to be seen to have taken him out. If of course he just happens to be in a control room that goes kaboom then they're adamant that it won't be anything other than an unfortunate accident...

(This just in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939 - all the coalition partners are singing from the same hymn sheet on that point)

The USAF personnel on the ground may think they're at war, or they may think they're on a peace-keeping exercise. How they perceive the mission probably depends on the detail and content of their orders.

You wrote "Those were entirely valid questions. But politicians also consider, how much will our actions affect our standing at home. Diplomats consider, how much will our actions affect our standing with our allies."

You for got to add: Mothers and Fathers ask "why did my son/daughter have to die to feed the egos of politicians and diplomats?"

>Obama was allowed to piss on the Constitution by Congress when they did not positively verify his nationality. From that point on, it allowed to go on and on and on.
>
>It was a question BEFORE he was elected and now we pay the price.

And this may only be the downpayment.

36
posted on 03/21/2011 8:26:59 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

If a politician or a diplomat had children serving in the Forces then you’d be right. But these days, they’re rarer than hen’s teeth in the United Kingdom.

Our Royal Family are just about the only people in any branch of the entire British parliamentary system that still encourages their children to go into the military AND serve at the front line AND muck in with everybody else.

Tony Blair and his ilk absolutely wouldn’t allow their kids to serve in the military for all the tea in China, unless they could wangle a nice desk job for their offspring.

But they were all quite happy to send our troops to the Middle East without the necessary equipment.

Why would anyone expect BO/BS to follow the Constitution when he is illegally occupying the Oval Office because he doesnt fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Those were my exact thoughts upon reading this ridiulous headline. Where is the Constitution ... INDEED! Where has it been for the past 26 months?

45
posted on 03/21/2011 10:06:51 AM PDT
by Just A Nobody
( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))

Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you dont agree with what hes done or how hes gone about it

WTH does the current illegal war have to do with any of "those situations." There is/was no imminent threat to the US, France or England -- that broadest of broad coalitions. The only threat from Daffy was to "rebels" to his government. We do not even know who those alleged "rebels" are. For all we know they could be the MB or AQ. It is simply mind boggling that there is anyone of FR trying to defend the actions of the usurper.

46
posted on 03/21/2011 10:29:48 AM PDT
by Just A Nobody
( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))

Remember how the term unlawful combatants was coined simply to escape the prisoner of war jargon under which the Geneva Convention applied?

Are you insinuating the term "unlawful combatant" only appeared during the WOT?

...the distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants (also referred to as unprivileged belligerents) has deep roots in international humanitarian law, preceding even the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907 contemplated distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants, and this distinction remains to this day.

As Professor Adam Roberts told the Brookings Speakers Forum in March 2002, There is a long record of certain people coming into the category of unlawful combatants pirates, spies, saboteurs, and so on. It has been absurd that there should have been a debate about whether or not that category exists.

47
posted on 03/21/2011 10:45:07 AM PDT
by Just A Nobody
( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.